The Alliance For I-69 Texas website has recently reported that the Texas Transportation Commission has approved $89.8 million of Proposition 12 bond funding for several I-69 upgrade projects along the US 59, 77 and 281 routes (the webpage has a good map of the respective locations of the projects):http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update10.7.11.html

Yeah, I-30/I-40 in Arkansas has more than enough traffic. This future I-69 (when fully completed through southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana) will greatly alleviate a lot of the heavy truck traffic that's clogging up I-30/I-40 (aside from the split speed limit that buffers car traffic as well).

Even if Tennessee doesn't build up US51 (it's a pain right now), the easy alternative is I-55 north to I-155 to Dyersburg.

Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf"10. Highway DesignationNueces County – Authorize submission of an application to the American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, thisminute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 fromI-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technicalreport prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operationalconditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, thissegment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existinginterstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility forthe designation."

This morning, the Texas Transportation Commission voted to add the AASHTO-approved section of US 77 to the Texas state highway system as I-69 (the first I-69 shield is supposed to go up in early December):http://www.txdot.gov/news/045-2011.htm

Quote

The Texas Transportation Commission took action today to add Interstate 69 to the state highway system, allowing Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officials to label the first Texas stretch of the nearly 1000-mile interstate since I-69 received federal high-priority route designation more than a decade ago.Today’s decision enables TxDOT to add the concurrent designation of I-69 to a 6.2-mile section of US 77 between I-37 and SH 44 in Nueces County. This concurrent designation is possible without additional funding, right of way or construction because the existing highway already meets interstate standards .... The first I-69 sign will go up in early December at the intersection of I-69/US 77 and SH 44 in Robstown .... TxDOT is also asking the FHWA for approval to add completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.

I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields. I was mildly surprised by her response:"Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."

our very own space captain JeffR had a hand in this. I may or may not have made the mockup shield he used as a prop at the meetings.

I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields. I was mildly surprised by her response:"Yes! The shields will have Texas on them. This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."

The efforts of Jeff Royston had something to do with the addition of the state name on I-69 shields in Texas. He shared with us some of his communications with the Executive Director of Alliance for I-69 Texas:

Quote

FYI. Thanks for your assistance on this matter. The Alliance leadershipstrongly supports including the state name on the interstate shields.

Quote

<snip>I wanted to let you know that we are planning to hold an event in the CorpusChristi area at 2 p.m. on Dec. 5th to mark the posting of the firstinterstate signs on a section of US 77 that will be designated as I-69.TxDOT is preparing the invitation and I will forward it to you once it isreleased. I have confirmed with TxDOT that the interstate shield willinclude "Texas". Many thanks for your efforts on this!

I recently received an email update from the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance on the current status of the proposed bill that would allow I-69 signage on US 281, US 83, and US 77 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Basically, it is anticipated that the bill, although introduced as a stand alone bill, will be rolled into the next reauthorization bill (if and when that ever occurs... ). Part of her response:

Quote

We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill. The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill. However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill. The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th. We will see what the House does.

If the bill does pass in the relatively near future, and with US 77 definitely being signed as I-69, it will be interesting to see what interstate designations US 83 and US 281 will receive.

EDITED: The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that currently combine for 91 miles of freeway standard mileage: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html

The map at this link shows, as of June 20, 2011, the working draft recommendation of the Section 4 Committee that US 77 be signed as an interstate from the Mexican border to south of Lyford and that US 281 be signed as an interstate from US 83 to north of McAllen (not sure why there is no apparent current status/recommendation for US 83 itself) [page 4/5 of pdf]:http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Seg%20Cmte%20Maps%20June2011.pdf

If the proposed bill passes, maybe TxDOT could follow KYTC's lead and reach an agreement with FHWA regarding the 91 miles of freeway standard mileage mentioned in second link above and immediately sign all 91 miles as interstate.

I recently received an email update from the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance on the current status of the proposed bill that would allow I-69 signage on US 281, US 83, and US 77 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Basically, it is anticipated that the bill, although introduced as a stand alone bill, will be rolled into the next reauthorization bill (if and when that ever occurs... ). Part of her response:

"We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill. The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill. However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill. The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th. We will see what the House does."

If the bill does pass in the relatively near future, and with US 77 definitely being signed as I-69, it will be interesting to see what interstate designations US 83 and US 281 will receive.

The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that are currently at freeway (and presumably interstate) standard and would be eligible for I-69 signage under the proposed bill: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html

Ditto US 59 to Laredo. I could see US 59 west of Victoria becoming 'I-6' and US 281 being a rerouted I-37. US 83? Howabout a 'western' I-4?

The Rio Grande Valley came 6.2 miles closer to losing its distinction as the largest metro area in the nation without direct access to an interstate Monday with the first stretch of Interstate 69, a trade corridor promised to someday link the Valley's Mexican border cities to inland America and Canada.The segment already met interstate standards and required no new construction, making Monday's ceremony largely symbolic. But the 10 “I-69” signs make those miles the first new interstate in Texas since 1992 ...

it mentioned that this was the first new interstate in Texas since 1992, was that the new I-20 in SE Dallas?

It would either have to be I-20 between Balch Springs and Terrell, or the last part of I-27 in the panhandle. I'm kinda surprised that I-44 didn't get the nod to extend along the new elevated section when it opened in Wichita Falls down to US 82. Then that might have been the most recent interstate section.

by BGS, do you also include side-mounted (as opposed to overhead-mounted) green signs?

for example, is this a BGS? it's B, and it's G, and it's certainly an S, but it might be a borderline example given its purpose.

a quick survey of the shield gallery reveals, offhand, only ID, KY, MO, ND, OH, OR, SD, TN, WV with no state-named shields on green signs in photos taken at any time, including some examples from only the 60s (RI), but most with examples surviving into the early 2000s at least. ID, OH, OR, SD and TN are likely the results of insufficient data, as they got rid of state-named shields quite a while back. MO, ND and WV are very scrupulous in their standards compliance, and KY is a little bit of both, I think.

(LA would be an example as well, but there is a brand-new state-named I-10 shield on a green sign which I have not yet posted to the gallery.)

restricting it to signs which are known to survive to the present day gives a few more negative examples, but those are directly in proportion to states in general not using state-named shields (Delaware, Utah, etc).

a quick survey of the shield gallery reveals, offhand, only ID, KY, MO, ND, OH, OR, SD, TN, WV with no state-named shields on green signs in photos taken at any time, including some examples from only the 60s (RI), but most with examples surviving into the early 2000s at least. ID, OH, OR, SD and TN are likely the results of insufficient data, as they got rid of state-named shields quite a while back. MO, ND and WV are very scrupulous in their standards compliance, and KY is a little bit of both, I think.

Evidently ODOT was schizophrenic about their interstate shields.For every stand alone interstate shield with 'Ohio' on itYou will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)Then theres this sign bridge from 1971 (according to ODOT again)http://www.odotonline.org/photoArchive/PhotoArchiveImages/Large/sign71.jpgThe foreground I-70 shields don't have 'Ohio' on them. The I-70 shield in the background might. It doesn't look like it though.

by BGS, do you also include side-mounted (as opposed to overhead-mounted) green signs?

for example, is this a BGS? it's B, and it's G, and it's certainly an S, but it might be a borderline example given its purpose.

LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.

P.S. I'm jealous. I have a crappy photo of that sign, and it disappeared by the time I made it back.

LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.

fair enough. I tend to note the distinction as "would the sign have mixed case in a jurisdiction where smaller signs have all-caps?" for example, Texas until recently had all-caps Series D on LGSes and mixed case Series E or EM on BGSes.

this NH example is indeed quite borderline, as there are no letters apart from the shield itself.